We carried out a review of the data available to us about Newton Lodge on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Newton Lodge, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
There was a robust procedure in place to welcome visitors to the home. This included information about the requirements needed to be able to safely enter in line with government guidance. There was personal protective equipment [PPE] and hand sanitisers available at the entrance. Visitors were asked to show they had completed a COVID -19 lateral flow test, complete a health questionnaire and have their temperatures taken. Visitors including health care professionals were asked to show their vaccination status.
Newton Lodge had a garden room which was available for people to spend time with their family and friends. However, visitors were able to visit within the home as well, if they chose to.
People were supported to understand the risks from COVID-19 to ensure they were able to comply with measures to minimise the risk of infection to themselves and others, where possible. This included regular testing, the use of personal protective equipment and vaccination.
The manager told us that they had good links with their local GP practice and local community learning disability team, to ensure people were supported throughout the pandemic.
The provider had supported people to have a variety of meaningful activities during a recent period of time when they needed to isolate in their rooms. This included buying them magazines, jigsaw puzzles and additional activities.
There was an up to date infection prevention and control (IPC) policy. Staff were regularly updated with any changes to government guidance and procedures to follow, so they could keep themselves, people and visitors safe.
Staff completed IPC training and were observed to be wearing the correct PPE and following best practice. Regular cleaning schedules and audits were monitored and demonstrated they were effective.
There was a registered manager in place at the home. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the home is run.
Staff sought consent from people before providing care. However, People’s ability to make decisions was not always assessed in line with legislation designed to protect people’s rights. The provider had taken action to address this but at the time of the inspection this was not fully embedded into the home.
People told us and indicated they felt the home was safe. Staff knew the people they supported and were able to explain the risks relating to them and the action they would take to help reduce the risks from occurring.
There were suitable systems in place to ensure the safe storage and administration of medicines. Medicines were administered by staff who had received appropriate training and assessments. Healthcare professionals, such as chiropodists, opticians, GPs and dentists were involved in people’s care when necessary.
Staff and the registered manager had received safeguarding training and were able to demonstrate an understanding of the provider’s safeguarding policy and explain the action they would take if they identified any concerns.
People were supported by staff who had received an induction into the home and appropriate training, professional development and supervision to enable them to meet people’s individual needs. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and to enable them to engage with people in a relaxed and unhurried manner.
Staff developed caring and positive relationships with people and were sensitive to their individual communication styles, choices and treated them with dignity and respect. People were encouraged to remain as independent as possible and maintain relationships that were important to them.
People were supported to have enough to eat and drink. Mealtimes were a social event and staff encouraged people, when necessary in a patient and friendly manner.
People and when appropriate their families were involved in discussions about their care planning, which reflected their assessed needs.
There was an opportunity for people and their families to become involved in developing the service. They were encouraged to provide feedback on the service provided both informally and through ‘house meetings’ and an annual survey. They were also supported to raise complaints should they wish to.
People told us that they felt the home was well-led and were positive about the registered manager who understood the responsibilities of their role. The provider was fully engaged in running the home and provided regular support to the registered manager. Staff were aware of the provider’s vision and values, how they related to their work and spoke positively about the culture and management of the home.
There were systems in place to monitor quality and safety of the service provided. Accidents and incidents were monitored, analysed and remedial actions identified to reduce the risk of reoccurrence.